Fluency is very strong and you have a quality argument being made. You do need to make sure that you are not just reaading, so you can look up at the judge and start to make some of the necessary connections with the argument.
Mini Rebuttal Redo Practice
Thomas—
Don’t be repetitive (computers are god or Satan)—make sure you can look up and make those connections—try to describe these arguments in a succinct way—computers wrapture.
2nd—better repetition—much better sound to your voice—looking up is much stronger—still think word economy is a big issue for you
Practice Round 1 (Baxter)
Thomas—
Really impressive and forceful beginning to the speech
Make sure you continue directing your arguments specifically to the 2ac
Start to use some analytical arguments too, in addition to responding to this
Nice attitude, spicy and uppity, really really good
Make sure you deal with all the parts of the disad that they have answered
You will eventually want to use some sort of an overview or explanation at the top of the 2nc as well
Smart idea to stsrat with a meta-iissuein the 2nr, make sure you also explain why it is precisely true, how I am going to sort it out
Don’t address the judge as “judge,” but that said you are doing an incredible job coming off as confident and strong
PRACTICE ROUND 2 (CLEMMONS)
Look at the notes from Baxter. You need to stand up straight. Use the chair and put your laptop on the chair.
Good job extending the advantage on case. Also good job reading more evidence on solvency. One thing to change is that you need to do some comparison of your evidence vs. your opponents.
Try to answer the questions and don't seem as though you are evading the question. It makes it seem like you are hiding something. You can always fall back on the case outweighs any small DA that they bring up.
Use the evidence to help set up your CX questions. I understand the point that you are making about using the WHEELER evidence, but make your opponent re-read the damaging point in the evidence
You are a straight comedian in the 2NR.
SOLYNDRA line was a great line. Rhetorically powerful to make a point on failure of CP.
You have to save some time to make the comparisons between the CP and the PLAN.
Practice Round 3 (Baxter)
You are doing an excellent job sounding confident. You want to have some analytical arguments in addition to your evidence as well. Remember, you need to compare the aff to the disads. You need to take advantage of your 1AC evidence, especially on the alien species da. Don’t read the title at the top of the page, just make the arguments (say now on politics as a transition)
Smart job starting with the overview. Try to do the explanation of the aff impacts, a bit quicker in certain areas. Explain your ethics arguments in an easily flowable way, you don’t need to read more evidence here, even though you are ccorrect to be focusing on this area.
Again, you don’t need more evidence, you need to explain what arguments the evidence you have already read makes and compare your evidence to theirs. Its much easier for judges to follow along with that.
Great jokes in the 2ar. Don’t have to re-read anything, but you do need to explain the argument that you are discussing. Getting excited is excellent but make sure you stay in the same spot, moving around too much just steals energy from the speech.
Watch out for swearing (doesn't bother me obviously, but some people won't dig it)
Mini Rebuttal Redo (Kehl)
You are very close to having all the pieces to a good rebuttal, you just need to finish your thoughts in some places. Right now you are doing a good job on the line by line, but you need a little more big picture analysis, never forget the format "They say, we say, this means" right now you're doing the first part, explaining what their arg was and what your answer is, even explaining why you're winning, but not what it means for the round if you win that argument.
Remember, if the debate really comes down to just the Plan vs the CP, the only things that matter are the solvency deficit and the link differential. If you're the aff, you want there to be a large solvency deficit to the CP and a very small link differential to the disad/case turns/K/whatever. If you're neg you want there to be a very small solvency deficit (preferably 0) and a very big link differential. Once you think in these terms it will really help your rebuttal analysis because you'll know the utility of the argument your making, it should only be one of those two things in a CP debate. If your argument is neither of those, it is most likely irrelevant.
Argument Advocacy Drills friday 8/7
--Start answering the perm with “perm isn’t nb”
--nice answers to eco ped—you should also say that they can’t actually solve it
--you could read some alternative solvency evidence here as well—at least explain what your alternative actually does
--use your 1NC evidence to make something happen
--your case outweighs arguments are smart, make sure you also talk about how your impacts are faster aetc.
--you also need to explain how the overfishing issue is a problem of capitalism, which demonstrates that the alternative would solve
Practice Round 4 Friday 8/7
You should be facing out to the room, tho I understand this isn’t exactly perfect for that situation
You don’t need to read the title at the top, just the tag and the evidence itself.
Make sure that you are directing your 1nr arguments back to specific 2ac claims in flow order so that the judge has tdhem in the right spot
Use this phrase “disad outweighs and turns the case” in order to help your impact arguments towards the bottom
Practice Round 8/9 (Liz)
You need to read link arguments with this politics disad. Also, one off politics needs to outweigh and turn the case, so add that impact module to the bottom of the disad shell - particularly if you're just reading the disad with no counterplan to solve all or parts of the aff. You should also be grappling with their ethics argument sooner, because their card about food distribution is pretty good and can definitely calc your disad out of the round. Solvency is not a reason to not vote aff - it just diminishes the probability and/or magnitude of their impacts. It's fine to read solvency args, but they shouldn't be read instead of offense. Additionally, I think the uniqueness of the aff goes the wrong way for your NOAA corruption arg at the top of case. If the SQ is badly regulated and the industry is collapsing now, it seems like the difference between the SQ and the impact of your NOAA card is difficult to establish. Since the default position of the negative is to defend the status quo, you want to establish that the SQ is good (your disad or case turn does not already exist so that the plan causes a unique, bad impact rather than making an already shitty situation worse).
Rebuttal Redo (Kehl)
Keep working on making your overviews more specific. Make sure to include more warrants, you're identifying what arguments you need in the round to win, but right now, you aren't using the best warrants to explain those arguments.
Rebuttal Redos--Monday 8/11
--incredible job of including some passion and drive to your argument
--make sure you are focusing your arguments on the cp as extending specific evidence right away, you want people to know where to flow this
--“their biologist evidence” is biased
--not repetivie on any of these questions, like the open vs land based aqua evidence
--doing a great job of looking uup at and engaging the judge more than you did originally
--make sure you impact every argument that you make on thiings like the NOAA bad debate
--more efficient introduction util argument
--voting issues at the end is pretty much repetitive I think
Practice Round 7--Monday 8/11
--don’t overuse this phrase “so drop it” when you say the 1ac s missing something, just impact it
--really nice tone and attitude for this speech, you sound like u r giving a quality 1nc
--1NR has a great combination and mix of evidence and analytical arguments
--don’t slow down too much, especially reading evidence, stay up to your 1nc speed
--don’t divide things further than the 2ac order, you should be focused on explaining your argument in the context of answering the shit they said about it
Practice Round Tuesday 8/12 (Kehl)
Everyone needs to work on better distinguishing between the tags and the warrants. Also, no one was very effectively using their time, everyone was spending almost the whole speech just on defense, and only 1-2 sentences on the offense. Make sure we focus on the offense and the interaction of positions. Also, make sure that the questions we ask are more to the point, while the trick questions are fun to ask, you should be asking relevant questions as well. Lastly, in the rebuttals, we all need to get out of the weeds and explaining our arguments at a more meta-level, I should actually be hearing words like "offense, defense, probability, etc." Don't just say you are winning an argument, explain what winning the argument means for the round.
Impact Comparison Drill--8/12
--probability is good, nice job incorporating current events,
--direct comparison should come earlier in the debate
--I don’t really think that probability is the focus you want to be making against sexism claims, you should be hammering down on the magnitude claim from the start
--maybe if you are making probability claims it needs to be to the internal link level
--why is heg decline happening right now? Explain this to me? The examples help a lot but they are coming in too late
--you really need to be hammering down on their argument as well, you don’t really have much in the comparative department here, until you get to the “you absorb the argument” part of things
Topicality Drill--8/13
--say “they don’t meet” then the warrant that goes onto it
--look up a little further
--you could consider grouping the counterinterpretation stuff
--explain a little more about why its not overlimiting, why is the ground you allow enough
Practice Round 8/13 (Liz)
Ask yourself what the purpose of this heg add-on is. Your time in the 2AC is better spent answering the offense on case than reading an add-on (particularly when the 1NC just reads politics, so this add-on isn't functioning as a disad to a counterplan). Also, when you get to heg, you're not reading link (solvency) args or uniqueness (harms). As it is now, it's just internal links and impacts. Your card reading has gotten better at separating the tag, cite, and warrant and distinguishing between cards. You're right to want to read an overview at the beginning of the 2AC, but I'm not sure what the overview gets you when you're not reading any cards or framework that prioritizes biocentrism or kritik anthro. You're just asserting that anthro is bad. Your politics link turns are good, but the ev is a little dated, so it's a risk to read if you think it's probable the aff has more recent cards. You also need to contest the uniqueness claims of the disad with non-unique args for these link turns to be offense for you (right? because if NSA bill is going to pass now as their uniqueness says, and your link turns just say that plan causes it to pass, that's not a unique benefit of the aff - it's going to pass no matter what, as opposed to non-uniques that say it won't pass now and plan causes it to pass, which is something good that your aff does (offense)).
Rebuttal Redo 8/14 (Baxter)
--“they say perm WHAT PERM IT IS”
--nice theory arguments on the perm, say they are a vi—you also need to say why the perms don’t solve/still link
--what is the net benefit to the cp?
--when you extend your levitan evidence explain why it contradicts
--why is national policy of great detriment
Practice Debate 11—8/15 (Baxter)
--you need some uniqueness answers to get the offense on your link turns
--you also need to have some more diversity on your politics answers, you don’t want to let them just throw down on that question, spend some more time on the disad
--keep working on endurance drills, it will make the end of the 2ac even stronger
--that’s a really bold claim on the ov I kinda like it a lot, but I think u need to answer why this is the case in all the other sitatioons
--they said “this” on some other argument ,is a great thing
Practice Debate 12—8/15 (Baxter)
--excellent job with a lot of material that you don’t have much experience with
--stick to the struuct 2ac structure
--good work with confidence
--efficiency when you get really worked up and going will take you a very long way
First speech/evidence drill:
Fluency is very strong and you have a quality argument being made. You do need to make sure that you are not just reaading, so you can look up at the judge and start to make some of the necessary connections with the argument.
Mini Rebuttal Redo Practice
Thomas—
Don’t be repetitive (computers are god or Satan)—make sure you can look up and make those connections—try to describe these arguments in a succinct way—computers wrapture.
2nd—better repetition—much better sound to your voice—looking up is much stronger—still think word economy is a big issue for you
Practice Round 1 (Baxter)
Thomas—
Really impressive and forceful beginning to the speech
Make sure you continue directing your arguments specifically to the 2ac
Start to use some analytical arguments too, in addition to responding to this
Nice attitude, spicy and uppity, really really good
Make sure you deal with all the parts of the disad that they have answered
You will eventually want to use some sort of an overview or explanation at the top of the 2nc as well
Smart idea to stsrat with a meta-iissuein the 2nr, make sure you also explain why it is precisely true, how I am going to sort it out
Don’t address the judge as “judge,” but that said you are doing an incredible job coming off as confident and strong
PRACTICE ROUND 2 (CLEMMONS)
Look at the notes from Baxter. You need to stand up straight. Use the chair and put your laptop on the chair.
Good job extending the advantage on case. Also good job reading more evidence on solvency. One thing to change is that you need to do some comparison of your evidence vs. your opponents.
Try to answer the questions and don't seem as though you are evading the question. It makes it seem like you are hiding something. You can always fall back on the case outweighs any small DA that they bring up.
Use the evidence to help set up your CX questions. I understand the point that you are making about using the WHEELER evidence, but make your opponent re-read the damaging point in the evidence
You are a straight comedian in the 2NR.
SOLYNDRA line was a great line. Rhetorically powerful to make a point on failure of CP.
You have to save some time to make the comparisons between the CP and the PLAN.
Practice Round 3 (Baxter)
You are doing an excellent job sounding confident. You want to have some analytical arguments in addition to your evidence as well. Remember, you need to compare the aff to the disads. You need to take advantage of your 1AC evidence, especially on the alien species da. Don’t read the title at the top of the page, just make the arguments (say now on politics as a transition)
Smart job starting with the overview. Try to do the explanation of the aff impacts, a bit quicker in certain areas. Explain your ethics arguments in an easily flowable way, you don’t need to read more evidence here, even though you are ccorrect to be focusing on this area.
Again, you don’t need more evidence, you need to explain what arguments the evidence you have already read makes and compare your evidence to theirs. Its much easier for judges to follow along with that.
Great jokes in the 2ar. Don’t have to re-read anything, but you do need to explain the argument that you are discussing. Getting excited is excellent but make sure you stay in the same spot, moving around too much just steals energy from the speech.
Watch out for swearing (doesn't bother me obviously, but some people won't dig it)
Mini Rebuttal Redo (Kehl)
You are very close to having all the pieces to a good rebuttal, you just need to finish your thoughts in some places. Right now you are doing a good job on the line by line, but you need a little more big picture analysis, never forget the format "They say, we say, this means" right now you're doing the first part, explaining what their arg was and what your answer is, even explaining why you're winning, but not what it means for the round if you win that argument.Remember, if the debate really comes down to just the Plan vs the CP, the only things that matter are the solvency deficit and the link differential. If you're the aff, you want there to be a large solvency deficit to the CP and a very small link differential to the disad/case turns/K/whatever. If you're neg you want there to be a very small solvency deficit (preferably 0) and a very big link differential. Once you think in these terms it will really help your rebuttal analysis because you'll know the utility of the argument your making, it should only be one of those two things in a CP debate. If your argument is neither of those, it is most likely irrelevant.
Argument Advocacy Drills friday 8/7
--Start answering the perm with “perm isn’t nb”
--nice answers to eco ped—you should also say that they can’t actually solve it
--you could read some alternative solvency evidence here as well—at least explain what your alternative actually does
--use your 1NC evidence to make something happen
--your case outweighs arguments are smart, make sure you also talk about how your impacts are faster aetc.
--you also need to explain how the overfishing issue is a problem of capitalism, which demonstrates that the alternative would solve
Practice Round 4 Friday 8/7
You should be facing out to the room, tho I understand this isn’t exactly perfect for that situation
You don’t need to read the title at the top, just the tag and the evidence itself.
Make sure that you are directing your 1nr arguments back to specific 2ac claims in flow order so that the judge has tdhem in the right spot
Use this phrase “disad outweighs and turns the case” in order to help your impact arguments towards the bottom
Practice Round 8/9 (Liz)
You need to read link arguments with this politics disad. Also, one off politics needs to outweigh and turn the case, so add that impact module to the bottom of the disad shell - particularly if you're just reading the disad with no counterplan to solve all or parts of the aff. You should also be grappling with their ethics argument sooner, because their card about food distribution is pretty good and can definitely calc your disad out of the round. Solvency is not a reason to not vote aff - it just diminishes the probability and/or magnitude of their impacts. It's fine to read solvency args, but they shouldn't be read instead of offense. Additionally, I think the uniqueness of the aff goes the wrong way for your NOAA corruption arg at the top of case. If the SQ is badly regulated and the industry is collapsing now, it seems like the difference between the SQ and the impact of your NOAA card is difficult to establish. Since the default position of the negative is to defend the status quo, you want to establish that the SQ is good (your disad or case turn does not already exist so that the plan causes a unique, bad impact rather than making an already shitty situation worse).Rebuttal Redo (Kehl)
Keep working on making your overviews more specific. Make sure to include more warrants, you're identifying what arguments you need in the round to win, but right now, you aren't using the best warrants to explain those arguments.Rebuttal Redos--Monday 8/11
--incredible job of including some passion and drive to your argument
--make sure you are focusing your arguments on the cp as extending specific evidence right away, you want people to know where to flow this
--“their biologist evidence” is biased
--not repetivie on any of these questions, like the open vs land based aqua evidence
--doing a great job of looking uup at and engaging the judge more than you did originally
--make sure you impact every argument that you make on thiings like the NOAA bad debate
--more efficient introduction util argument
--voting issues at the end is pretty much repetitive I think
Practice Round 7--Monday 8/11
--don’t overuse this phrase “so drop it” when you say the 1ac s missing something, just impact it
--really nice tone and attitude for this speech, you sound like u r giving a quality 1nc
--1NR has a great combination and mix of evidence and analytical arguments
--don’t slow down too much, especially reading evidence, stay up to your 1nc speed
--don’t divide things further than the 2ac order, you should be focused on explaining your argument in the context of answering the shit they said about it
Practice Round Tuesday 8/12 (Kehl)
Everyone needs to work on better distinguishing between the tags and the warrants. Also, no one was very effectively using their time, everyone was spending almost the whole speech just on defense, and only 1-2 sentences on the offense. Make sure we focus on the offense and the interaction of positions. Also, make sure that the questions we ask are more to the point, while the trick questions are fun to ask, you should be asking relevant questions as well. Lastly, in the rebuttals, we all need to get out of the weeds and explaining our arguments at a more meta-level, I should actually be hearing words like "offense, defense, probability, etc." Don't just say you are winning an argument, explain what winning the argument means for the round.Impact Comparison Drill--8/12
--probability is good, nice job incorporating current events,
--direct comparison should come earlier in the debate
--I don’t really think that probability is the focus you want to be making against sexism claims, you should be hammering down on the magnitude claim from the start
--maybe if you are making probability claims it needs to be to the internal link level
--why is heg decline happening right now? Explain this to me? The examples help a lot but they are coming in too late
--you really need to be hammering down on their argument as well, you don’t really have much in the comparative department here, until you get to the “you absorb the argument” part of things
Topicality Drill--8/13
--say “they don’t meet” then the warrant that goes onto it
--look up a little further
--you could consider grouping the counterinterpretation stuff
--explain a little more about why its not overlimiting, why is the ground you allow enough
Practice Round 8/13 (Liz)
Ask yourself what the purpose of this heg add-on is. Your time in the 2AC is better spent answering the offense on case than reading an add-on (particularly when the 1NC just reads politics, so this add-on isn't functioning as a disad to a counterplan). Also, when you get to heg, you're not reading link (solvency) args or uniqueness (harms). As it is now, it's just internal links and impacts. Your card reading has gotten better at separating the tag, cite, and warrant and distinguishing between cards. You're right to want to read an overview at the beginning of the 2AC, but I'm not sure what the overview gets you when you're not reading any cards or framework that prioritizes biocentrism or kritik anthro. You're just asserting that anthro is bad. Your politics link turns are good, but the ev is a little dated, so it's a risk to read if you think it's probable the aff has more recent cards. You also need to contest the uniqueness claims of the disad with non-unique args for these link turns to be offense for you (right? because if NSA bill is going to pass now as their uniqueness says, and your link turns just say that plan causes it to pass, that's not a unique benefit of the aff - it's going to pass no matter what, as opposed to non-uniques that say it won't pass now and plan causes it to pass, which is something good that your aff does (offense)).Rebuttal Redo 8/14 (Baxter)
--“they say perm WHAT PERM IT IS”
--nice theory arguments on the perm, say they are a vi—you also need to say why the perms don’t solve/still link
--what is the net benefit to the cp?
--when you extend your levitan evidence explain why it contradicts
--why is national policy of great detriment
Practice Debate 11—8/15 (Baxter)
--you need some uniqueness answers to get the offense on your link turns
--you also need to have some more diversity on your politics answers, you don’t want to let them just throw down on that question, spend some more time on the disad
--keep working on endurance drills, it will make the end of the 2ac even stronger
--that’s a really bold claim on the ov I kinda like it a lot, but I think u need to answer why this is the case in all the other sitatioons
--they said “this” on some other argument ,is a great thing
Practice Debate 12—8/15 (Baxter)
--excellent job with a lot of material that you don’t have much experience with
--stick to the struuct 2ac structure
--good work with confidence
--efficiency when you get really worked up and going will take you a very long way